In an exclusive comparison, PickupTrucks.com took a 2011 Ford F-450 King Ranch Super Duty and 2011 GMC Sierra Denali 3500HD and pushed them to their limits on the twisting high altitude roads of the Colorado Rockies. We also tested them head-to-head on a dyno to measure their real-world power ratings a mile above sea level.

First, some background about two of the most luxurious and capable pickups you can buy.

Separate comprehensive road tests are coming for each of these rigs, but for this first test, we visited the folks at ATS Diesel in Denver.

ATS invents, designs, manufactures and distributes diesel truck performance products worldwide for Cummins, Duramax and Power Stroke owners. They also have a one-stop full-service shop for repairs and upgrades.

We put the F-450 and Sierra 3500 on a chassis dynamometer at ATS to measure their power output at the rear wheels.

Like the Ford F-350 we dynoed recently at Gale Banks Engineering, the F-450 was running with Ford’s updated “Job 2” engine and transmission control software and calibrations. It boosts the 6.7-liter Power Stroke V-8’s power rating to 400 horsepower (@2,800 rpm) and 800 pounds-feet of torque (@1,600 rpm) – an increase of 10 hp and 65 pounds-feet over the initial "Job 1" version of the engine (announced in February) that made 390 hp (at 2,800 rpm) and 735 pounds-feet of torque (at 1,600 rpm). The Sierra Denali’s 6.6-liter Duramax V-8 is rated at 397 hp (at 3,000 rpm) and 765 pounds-feet of torque (at 1,600 rpm).

Before someone points it out, the F-450 and Sierra 3500 are technically not the same class of truck. The F-450 is considered a one-and-a-half-ton while the 3500 is a one-ton. But for 2011, they’re closer to each other than ever before because of recent mechanical changes to the F-450. Ford made major revisions to lighten the 2011 F-450’s frame and running gear by 600 pounds for improved fuel economy and a higher top speed, including using more chassis components from the F-350 and reducing wheel and tire size from 19 inches to 17 inches.

The F-450 is only available with a 4.30 rear axle, while the Sierra Denali 3500 has a 3.73 rear axle. To compensate for this major difference, we ran the F-450 in 5th gear and the Sierra in 4th on the dyno because when you multiply the driveline ratios (transmission gear ratio times rear axle ratio) for both trucks in those gears, they are incredibly close to each other. The F-450 is 3.70 (0.86 times 4.30) and the Sierra is 3.73 (1.00 times 3.73).

Rear axles are rated with a number to describe how many rotations the driveshaft must make to turn the rear wheels. For example, the F-450’s rear axle turns once every 4.30 driveshaft rotations. Generally, the higher the ratio, the faster the driveshaft turns, and the sooner the driveshaft can transfer peak horsepower and torque from the engine to the rear wheels. The result, generally, is faster acceleration and higher towing capacity than a rear axle with a lower ratio. The drawback is lower fuel economy and top speed.

We were able to measure power output in the Ford about 600 rpm sooner than in the Denali because of its manually locked-up torque converter.

Tire size between both trucks was almost identical, so this didn’t play a significant role by acting as a kind of third reduction gear, because tire height can also affect how quickly power is transferred to the road. Generally, the taller the tire, the more effort needed to reach peak horsepower and torque.

The dyno results were surprising.

Using a new manual-shift mode that’s unique to Ford’s all-new 6R140 six-speed automatic transmission, we could select and hold fifth gear down to 1,400 rpm with the torque converter locked up, acting like a virtual manual transmission.

The Denali’s six-speed automatic Allison transmission only runs in full automatic shift mode – though you can lock out the top gears to firmly control the gearbox’s range – with the torque converter automatically disengaging at around 1,950 rpm. A torque converter is used to transmit engine power to the truck’s automatic transmission. At high engine speeds, it’s locked for the best fuel economy. At low engine speeds, it’s unlocked to help the driveline manage engine power and to prevent the truck from stalling at a full stop.

You’ll see the difference between the two trucks in the dyno chart because we could reliably measure power output in the Ford about 600 rpm sooner than in the Denali because of its early locked-up torque converter.

For torque, the Denali came out on top, but just barely. It was rated at 700 pounds-feet versus 697 pounds-feet in the King Ranch. But the Super Duty’s Power Stroke had a much broader and flatter peak torque curve than the GMC’s Duramax, with near-peak torque starting around 1,800 rpm and stretching to about 2,800 rpm. Altitude seemed to play a role, since Denver is about 5,500 feet above sea level. It pushed the peak numbers up the rpm range versus their sea-level-rated measurements. The Duramax was especially high up in the revs, with peak torque at 2,380 rpm instead of 1,600 rpm.

For horsepower, the Power Stroke beat the Duramax, 365 hp (at 2,800 rpm) to 348 hp (at 2,870 rpm). In contrast to torque, peak horsepower presented itself in both trucks at rpms close to where the truck-makers’ maximum claimed numbers are.

Again, on the chassis dyno, both measurements were made at the rear wheels instead of at the crankshaft. A 15 to 20 percent power loss from the crank to the rear wheels due to friction and rotational parasitic forces is a fair number to use, gauging the relative difference between claimed and dynoed numbers.

We noticed a slight dip in the Power Stroke’s ratings across the wide rpm range. We’re not sure why. It could be from the exhaust gas recirculation system, which helps reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by cooling combustion temperatures.

We drove both trucks on the infamous 7 percent eastbound hill climb that leads up to the Eisenhower Tunnel at about 11,000 feet above sea level in the Rocky Mountains. It’s a steady grade that’s about seven miles long. It starts at around 8,500 feet elevation. At these altitudes, an engine has noticeably less oxygen to work with than at sea level, so it must work harder to do the same amount of work. Engines can compensate to a certain degree by using different performance calibrations that change combustion and fueling strategies. But with a lack of oxygen, heavy load and steep ascent, you can run a truck at wide open throttle, and it will still gradually lose speed until engine performance and atmospheric challenges find a balance point.

Starting at wide open throttle running the trucks up the grade from Dillon, Colo., to the tunnel entrance, we measured the Sierra Denali 3500HD at an average speed of 66 mph and the Ford F-450 at an average speed of 51.87 mph.

The Sierra Denali had a curb weight of 8,100 pounds. The F-450’s curb weight was 8,760 pounds – 210 pounds more than an F-350 we tested during the HD Shootout.

The Sierra Denali 3500HD's performance advantage over the Super Duty is about as stark as the difference we saw in the power curves on the dyno. We believe it’s because the Sierra Denali’s calibrations at altitude are dialed in almost perfectly to match engine output. However, it seems that Ford still has plenty of room in the future to tune the 6.7 to tap its full potential at high elevations.

The rear axle ratios also played a role, but it wasn’t many years ago that a 3.73 rear axle on the Eisenhower grade would have been considered a major handicap versus having a 4.30 back end. It seems that the recent power levels both engines have attained are helping to make up for mechanical workarounds in the driveline.

We’ll have more details about these two trucks in each of their upcoming road test stories.

Although the 4.10 rear in the Ford would help when it comes to the torque, drag racing against the 3.73 rear in the GM not so much...

Hell I bet if you went and got an F250 with the 3.31 rear in it and did the same test I bet the outcome would be in Fords favor... just saying. Either way both trucks are a lot better than what we had just a few short years ago and it looks like Ford (so far) has proved the naysayers wrong with this new Powerstroke.

Posted by: Shawn | Sep 17, 2010 4:50:39 PM

good point Shawn, when you drive any of these diesels, it seems the higher the gear you are in, the better the acceleration is. In fact, it's not very quick in 1st gear. It would be interesting to see how a SD went with 3.31, it seems like nobody reviews it and the dealers only order the 3.55. I really love how the 2011 GM trucks drive though.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 17, 2010 5:11:08 PM

Mike,
When you did the update last time it seemed to clear up the power dip in the PS curves yet this one still exhibits this characteristic. Do you think the data from the f350 test was an anomaly?

Posted by: smtrthnu | Sep 17, 2010 6:38:54 PM

Those are some beautfiul mountains. I'm taking a trip soon. Wow!!!!

Posted by: Frank | Sep 17, 2010 6:55:52 PM

@smtrthnu: I think the dip returning could be due to the altitude at which we tested. The engine working harder to produce power could require EGR not needed at sea level.

It made me laugh that the first comments are Ford fans trying to make excuses on why the PSD performed so poorly vs. the Duramax even though It's torque band is wider and has greater HP. That DMAX is just impossible to beat, it's impressive. Sorry Mike if I'm already stirring up the Ford boys.

Posted by: Greg | Sep 17, 2010 7:35:02 PM

The F-450 can tow more weight, has better styling, interior and work like features. Sorry GM boys you lose again.

Posted by: Dave | Sep 17, 2010 7:43:41 PM

Ford boys just can't take getting beat by 10 year old Dmax.
POOR POOR FORD ALL HYPE NO GUTS!!!

Posted by: madmax | Sep 17, 2010 7:52:53 PM

These trucks are now officially beyond insane in my opinion. The Duramax is a beast like Greg is pointing out. And an all-new 6.9L Duramax still to come? What's it going to have 500+ HP? No doubt the Ford 6.7 was designed to have about 10 or more years of future power upgrades also. When is it going to stop? Hopefully never!

Posted by: Alex | Sep 17, 2010 7:53:52 PM

Are you kidding me, I can tow 10,000 with my 1/2 ton. They should be towing 20,000 for this test,then you will see the Ford Dominate!!!!

Posted by: HT | Sep 17, 2010 7:56:24 PM

@Dave
Yea it may tow more but put 24000 on it what's the speed then 10 mph. No thanks!!

Posted by: madmax | Sep 17, 2010 7:59:23 PM

Who beat who? Once again the sound-byte believing GM fans can't read or comprehend complete statements.

"For torque, the Denali came out on top, but just barely. It was rated at 700 pounds-feet versus 697 pounds-feet in the King Ranch. But the Super Duty’s Power Stroke had a much broader and flatter peak torque curve than the GMC’s Duramax, with near-peak torque starting around 1,800 rpm and stretching to about 2,800 rpm. Altitude seemed to play a role, since Denver is about 5,500 feet above sea level. It pushed the peak numbers up the rpm range versus their sea-level-rated measurements. The Duramax was especially high up in the revs, with peak torque at 2,380 rpm instead of 1,600 rpm."

I was only trying to make a point in the difference in the tall vs. Short rear setups. If they tested a Ford with a 3.73 or even a 3.55 in it, it would have been a more even match. If you know anything about vehicles then you know what I just said is the truth. I don't know if the Ford would have been still able to keep up with the GM or not. I gave props to both trucks btw so don't be hating on me please.

Posted by: Shawn | Sep 17, 2010 8:04:02 PM

I don't care about dyno sheets, all I care about is who can get to the top of the mountain faster and easier and for some unexplainable reason (ok engineers could probably explain) the Duramax comes out on top.

Posted by: Sean | Sep 17, 2010 8:26:25 PM

It seems odd, that when there is a F-350 to compare to a 3500 that someone decides to choose a F-450 and say, "well they are all trucks so that makes them equal". Then you choose to use a trailer with a weight of 10,700 which a F-350 could easily pull.

Did you really want to compare apples to apples or did you just want a decent outcome for the truck that took your taxpayer dollars?

I find this pretty childish and at least you don't see real guys comparing two different animals.

Posted by: Rip - F450 | Sep 17, 2010 8:28:27 PM

They should have just used a F-350. The only advantage for the F-450 is the higher max tow rating which is useless if you just tow 10,000 lbs. So unlike people were saying on the facebook page, in actuality it was the 3500 that had the unfair advantage.

Posted by: Jason | Sep 17, 2010 9:12:23 PM

I'm curious as to what RPM each truck was revving when the Ford was at 51.87 mph and the Sierra at 66 mph?
There is a 13.3 % difference in gear ratios.
That would effect how high the engines were revving.
A 3.73 ratio in the Ford would theoretically mean a speed of 59.8 MPH at the same RPM.
If you applied the same theory to the GM and put a 4.30 in, its speed would be 57.2 MPH at the same RPM.
Are these trucks so powerful that it is actually a hindrance to have a lower gear ratio on the highway?
Fuel for thought!

Posted by: lou | Sep 17, 2010 9:16:53 PM

I really am surprised that pickup trucks.com would do such a poor test, It is not in line with their usual excellent work. This test is just asking to be picked apart. First of all, 10000 lbs is a joke for either of these rigs, I've towed more in a half ton, 15000 should be the minimum for such a test. Also, get the same size and gear ratio or your asking for criticism, I think they just couldn't turn down a chance to drive around such nice rigs so they made up a test to make it happen.

Posted by: Neil | Sep 17, 2010 10:58:20 PM

@Neil: We're up front pointing out the differences in rear axles. Everything is out in the open here.

I'll provide some more background. The 38-foot long horse trailer in the photos behind the Denali weighed 13,720 pounds. With both trucks traveling up I-70 single file, there were times when I was driving the F-450 with the 10,700 pound RV in the second position that I couldn't keep up with the Denali pulling an extra 3,000 pounds, even with my foot full in the throttle.

The question I'd ask is: Why does the F-450 only have a 4.30 rear axle? I'd want a 4.10 or a 3.73 if it was my truck.

Also - I can't say for sure except by looking at the speed data we collected above 8,500 feet - it appears that the F-450 defuels the engine 5 mph below the Sierra in an effort to control soot production so the DPF doesn't get choked up and require more frequent regenerations - which would reduce fuel economy. There appeared to be firm speed ceilings when the trucks started on about a 5 percent grade before they both lost speed on the steeper 7 percent section.

I'll also re-emphasize that the Power Stroke very clearly shows it has a superior power curve, as seen in the dyno charts. Given time and a few more calibrations, I'm sure it will tear up the mountains.

Neil, I would say 10,000 lbs in a half ton would be the exception, not the rule. Sounds like it was an exception even for you. You don't buy a half ton to pull 10,000 lbs frequently. So this test was applicable to people cross shopping 2011 GM and Ford. A Top Gear style test would be pretty interesting to read though, see which one breaks first.

Posted by: Alex | Sep 17, 2010 11:20:28 PM

@Lou: You asked about RPMs. My 'snapshot' notes near the top of the grade say that the F-450 held fifth gear at 52 MPH and 2,200 rpm. It downshifted at the end to 4th and 2,800 rpm. The Denali was in 4th gear at 2,800 rpm at roughly the same spot.

This is a beautiful area to drive through. I went through here over the summer towing 7g. A lot is made about the effects of altitude on performance but a turbo does a lot to offset this effect. Keep in mind that thinner air means less drag and on trucks as big as our it can be a profound difference. Sometimes it feel like there is a giant hand pushing you along at higher altitudes. Plus you can hear the radio a lot better. I love driving in the mountains.

Posted by: smtrthnu | Sep 18, 2010 9:09:55 AM

Every dyno is different and every truck is different. I will say from seeing a 6.7 dynoed (after update) and from various other tests on other sites (including Pickuptrucks.com) that the peak torque is measured between 1,600 - 1,800 RPM. As you can see from the dyno graph that the 6.7 climbs and peaks out in that range. That is the magic range and every dyno should record the peak torque there. As to why this dyno found peak torque at 2,600 RPM is beyond me. Maybe it was the elevation, gears, driver, dyno...who knows I am no expert. My point is other dyno tests I have seen of the 6.7 find the peak torque in the 1,600 - 1,800 RPM range and this dyno did not. I highest I have seen for the 6.7 is 720lb/ft torque on a rolling dynojet in NY. I guess overall results can vary.

Posted by: Justin | Sep 18, 2010 10:04:56 AM

Could someone explain why a taller geared rear axle ratio would be an advantage for the Ford? The engine was not at max rpm, and had taller gears in the transmission that it was not using if indeed a higher overall ratio was needed. For whatever reason, the GM dominated in this towing test, and I doubt that different gearing would make any advantage for the Powerstroke. Personally, I think Ford is still learning how to program their new diesel and wouldn't be suprised to see another computer update to fix high altitude towing performance.

Posted by: richterscale | Sep 18, 2010 10:20:43 AM

So the GM is rated at 765 lb. ft. tq. and gets 700 lb. ft. to the ground while the Ford is rated at 800 lb. ft. and gets 697 to the ground? Interesting...

Posted by: Greg | Sep 18, 2010 12:28:56 PM

Guys stop playing,"if a dog had a square butt he would be crapping bricks" in other words;the test result speaks for themself.
Sounds like you guys want to here that Ford with its new hp rating beat GM, not so.
Like it or not the Duramax(being 10 years old) and the Alli is a hard combo to beat.
Truth is that once you get the GMC home and add a exhaust system to it, you will have maybe 12- 25 hp and 35 - 60 lbs torque and over 20 mpg...Nasty Good!!
And better ride quality...GMC any day!

Posted by: Rob Lee | Sep 18, 2010 2:42:29 PM

Rob,

Isn't that a bit optimistic to think that all the drivetrain loss can be made up with just an exhaust? Just askin...

Posted by: richterscale | Sep 18, 2010 3:10:32 PM

Ha, coming from the owner of a Supercrew F150...I suspected that the advertisements of late from Ford have a certian ring to them...that being creative bragging rights. On paper, the PS has more power, and on pavement the D-Max has more power. Again, sissy Ford fanboi's, quit your whining and excuses and salute the king. That is how the game is played.

No doubt Ford will reprogram their PS later, but right now, where the rubber meets the road....GM gets credit for drive train efficiency. Again, kudos to GM. The better their trucks get, the faster govt gets loans paid back from purchases of their products. It's a win-win for me. Plus as a side note, I get see all the fanboi's of the PS get butt-hurt about it and start with excuses and what not. Real men don't get butt hurt when another truck performs better, they give congrats. From a Ford truck owner, congrats to GM on their drive train efficiency, prgress has been made. Now, work on the interior and you will have a winner. And for the love of god, don't make the front end hideous like Superduty's are now. That grill on the SD needs its own zipcode, how ugly.

Posted by: Red_4x4 | Sep 18, 2010 3:21:25 PM

I love the harsh criticism of the test. I'm sure the people bitching about it have the means to throw down a better test. We have an 08' F350 6.4 and it pulls like a beast and has been reliable. The results of this test (plus Mike's admission of how the heavier weighted Denali pulled away from him) makes it look like apples and oranges, not how it was set up.

It's not like I'm ready to go and buy a GM now but 51mph compared to 66mph is ridiculous. As good as the Ford is these are not impressive results. I'd like to put the 6.4 in the mix just to see.

Maybe a 20,000lb trailer and an F350 would be a better test but even if it was closer would it make you feel better about the F450 being spanked like this?

Posted by: Dave | Sep 18, 2010 3:31:47 PM

@richterscale

The taller gear in the Ford is actually a disadvantage for the purpose of this test which is why a lot of guys (except the GM fanboys) are crying foul. On a road with no incline a tall gear will provide more grunt (torque) quicker to the road than a smaller gear. That's great for getting a heavy load moving fast. The downside is having a taller gear makes the engine rev higher going down the road which will limit top speed and even cause you to burn more fuel. If you have a smaller gear in the rear then you will have less get up and go at the stoplight but you will be able to go faster once you get going and burn less fuel because your motor is not having to rev as high as it would with a tall gear.

To make a long story short if they had used a F350 with a smaller gear ratio in the rear say a 3.73 or a 3.55 then the test would have been more fair. But the GM fanboys don't like fair so we will leave it at that and let them have their day...

Bottom line is the F450 was handicapped from the start because of the tall 4.30 rear which made the motor work harder and limited top speed. If they had used an equal truck with the same gear ratio then you would have been able to more accurately see what both trucks could do. I would suspect that you would have been able to see and feel the true power of the Powerstroke because then it would have came down to sheer power of the motors... Just my .02 cents though.

Posted by: Shawn | Sep 18, 2010 3:49:10 PM

It was coincidence that we got both of these trucks together in Colorado. The Sierra Denali Rocky Mountain test has been planned for months. The F-450 was confirmed only two weeks ago here in LA.

To stretch our budget to the max for great stories, I made the decision to drive the F-450 out to Colorado, so I could tow with it there and manage the photography of both trucks.

Whether it came out in one story (this one) or two separate reviews, the time up the Eisenhower Tunnel was measured for both trucks. I made the decision to put it in this story.

The dyno test worked out because Duramax fans were asking us to dyno the LML after they saw the results of the 400/800 flash in our Gale Banks story last week.

As I said at the start of this story, there will be two separate reviews of each truck based on its own merits towing in the Rockies.

How does having a 4.30 gear versus a 3.73 gear make the engine work harder. Are you serious?

Gears are torque multipliers, like Mike pointed out in the article. Whatever gear the Ford is in compared to the GM it is getting more torque multiplication (trans gear x 4.30). It also allows the Ford to reach it's peak torque faster in each gear. With a manual, this could slow you down because of all the shifting, but not so much in an automatic.

This just shows how efficient the Allison is at getting power to the ground. I'm not trying to knock the F450, but some of the comments I read are ridiculous.

Posted by: Brent M | Sep 18, 2010 4:18:48 PM

this just show that the GM 3500 are better than any f350 cause they have to compare it to a 450

Posted by: cory | Sep 18, 2010 4:25:35 PM

I think most just think this is a direct apples to apples comparison which it isn't and Mike said this.

Can't wait to read the tests on each vehicle once they've been completed.

Posted by: TheTone | Sep 18, 2010 6:08:31 PM

@Brent M... Maybe I should have worded that a little better. Sorry for any confusion.

No it does not make the motor work harder if you are taking off from a dead stop. In fact it would make it easier to get a heavy load moving faster. But it does handicap the engine once you get to cruising speed. If you got two motor... hell make them from the same manufacture, and one is running a high gear and one is running a lower gear the high gear will beat if off the line every time (assuming the wheels can hook up) but the lower gear truck will run it down and pass it.

@Mike Levine - Mike I think you did a great story. I wasn't trying to imply that you guys got it wrong, I just think it would have been better if the two trucks were as equal as possible. Trust me I know you must have a big headache trying to arrange this stuff and get the story out as quickly as possible. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Shawn | Sep 18, 2010 6:10:40 PM

One last comment because I can't help myself. :-)

If we had run one truck up the grade and said it did so at X mph in Y minutes, you wouldn't have anything to compare it against.

Running two trucks up the grade in the same scenario - however different those two trucks are from each other towing the same trailer - at least provides some type of relative comparison for people to gauge performance.

I feel bad for Mike because no matter what type of comparison he does between Ford and GM, Ford always loses and the Ford fans say it was unfair. Its rediculous! Maybe Mike should do a GM loaded vs. Ford unloaded test so that the Ford can win one and make the Ford fans happy for a change.LMFAO

Posted by: Greg | Sep 18, 2010 7:16:18 PM

What I like about these type of comparo is it's done at the same place, same day, same time and under the same circusmtances.

It's easy to google info from different sources to piece together what we feel is good or bad but head to head like this is priceless and in this test the GM 3500 handed the F450 it's ass in an embarassing way.

Again, I'm not gonna run out and buy another GM (I have an 08' Silverado as my personal truck) but if these trucks were within a few mph of each other it wouldn't have crossed my mind to reply to this topic in the first place.

It's not like Mike was running a SD 6.2 gas vs. a Durmax here.

@Shawn, I agree it might have be a closer race with more comparable trucks. There are too many subtle differences that can alter the differences. I can see gearing making a diffrerence but from a straight up drag it was no comparo.

I wouldn't have expected this, not even close.

Posted by: Dave | Sep 18, 2010 7:23:12 PM

@Mike Levine, you took the words out of my mouth. I was late on the draw!

Posted by: Dave | Sep 18, 2010 7:35:27 PM

What has not been mentioned and needs to be taken into consideration is the handling of the load.

Which one was better for the overall safety and comfort?

I also think that gearing to a certain extent had something to do with the results.

Bottom line here is both are good platforms for the most part.

BTW I drive a F250 with the 6.4 and 3.73's with a 14K 5er and I can take that pass faster then 51 mph.

Posted by: Scott | Sep 18, 2010 8:14:01 PM

so basicly they're the same just pick your brand

Posted by: Evan | Sep 18, 2010 10:48:25 PM

I would think that as long as you didn't rev it past it's power band the 4.30 gears would help it keep from losing speed.If it was,why didn't it just up shift to the next gear?Don't they put the 4.30 gears in there to make it easier to pull heavy loads?

It does seem strange that the diesels in the shootout were much closer than these two, especially since the ford supposedly has much more power than the one in the shootout. Something just doesn't add up, it seems that the lower gearing in the ford should make up for the extra weight, how did the two compare at lower elevations? I Don't do much high elevation towing, are you guys planning to compare at lower altitude?

Posted by: Neil | Sep 18, 2010 11:17:57 PM

@ Mike levine - thanks.
Good work (as always) despite the naysayers;)

Looking at the torque and HP curves the 6.7PS starts to drop more quickly than the 6.6 DMax.
Did the Ford seem like it was being over revved?

The Ford held 5th for most of the hill? That would be Overdrive of 0.86. 0.86x4.3=3.698.
The DMax was in 4th for most of the hill?
4th is 1:1 therefore the final drive was 3.73.
I'd say 5th on the Ford is close to 4th on the GMC.
Ford's drop to 4th gear would yield a ratio of 4.945.
Feel free to double check my math. (It's late)

Guys were saying Ford was beat by a ten year old engine. Not really, as the DMax is 60% new.
It does look like GM has the DMax and its powertrain well sorted out.
Qudos to the engineers at GM.

The torque curve and gearing of the Ford seems to indicate it would be best suited as a "worksite workhorse".
The GM seems to be more suited to the role of "highway hauler".

Posted by: lou | Sep 18, 2010 11:51:22 PM

Hi Shawn,

A higher numerical (lower gearing) of the rear axle is a total advantage as long as you don't run out of rpm. In this case, the ford was running at @ 2200 rpm in fifth. If it had 3.73 gears, it would have been running @ the same rpm, just in fourth. The final ratio to the pavement is what counts once rolling, and that ratio is made up of both the axle and transmission ratios. Long story short, the ford had the advantage in gearing, so there is something else that contributed to the poor results in comparison to the GM.

Posted by: richterscale | Sep 18, 2010 11:58:07 PM

Ford lost, quit making excuses and wimpering about it people. So what, this "in house" diesel is not what Ford made it out to be, oh well. Still has an ungodly amount of torque hitting the road.

Now, go and buy the truck that suits you. For me, it's between the Nissan Titan, Dodge Ram (preferably a Dodge ram, they got it together...best lookng truck on the market), then maybe F150. ......But, my 01 F150 has to give up first.

Posted by: Red_4x4 | Sep 19, 2010 5:56:17 AM

who cares,how can a working man ever afford to buy one of these $ 50 to 60,000 trucks.guess i could sell my house and live in the truck-lol

Posted by: bowtie | Sep 19, 2010 8:36:22 AM

Bowtie: excellent observation, I could afford one..maybe, but why? I don't owe this much on my house, let alone spend it on a truck.